Employee Involvement and Participation Does Not Empower Employees - Essay Example

?‘Employee Involvement and Participation Does Not Empower Employees’ Introduction In the main body, the essay commences with a critical evaluation ofthe premise drawing on relevant theory and evidence. Secondly, the essay seeks to describe different formats of employee involvement and participation, and in the third section, the essay quote some examples to illustrate arguments presented. With reference to the title of the essay, it can be stated that it infers that involving the employees in the work processes, which also include the decision making process and even ensuring that employees fully participate in such processes, does not necessarily mean that the employees are empowered. Therefore, this present study seeks to critically evaluate this premise in order to establish whether it is a valid truth or not. While evaluating this statement, relevant theories and evidence with respect to the different formats of employee involvement and participation will be looked analysed, and additionally, some quote examples will be presented in order to illustrate the arguments presented within the paper. To begin with, it is critical to define the three key terms that appear on the title of this essay and this include employee involvement, which has been described by Blyton and Turnbull (2004), as the creation of an environment within the workplace whereby employees have an impact on the actions and decisions that relate with their roles and responsibilities. Bach (2005) on his part described employee involvement as the equal participation of workers in the decision making of how work is to be done, improvement of work performance, setting of objectives, planning and monitoring of their work performance. Secondly, Blyton and Turnbull (2004) described employee participation as a part of employee involvement that is intended to provide workers with the opportunity to influence and in certain circumstances play an active role in the decision making process of issues that affects them. As for employee empowerment, Ezzamel and Willmott (1998) simply defined it as a manipulation tool or management control that is critical in the attainment of full organisational potential. Alternatively, Bach (2005) described employee empowerment as management strategies for sharing decision-making power between the management and the employees. Employee involvement and participation does not empower employees It is noted that in the writings by Bach (2005) the term ‘empower’ means giving power to another party and hence giving the same party some form of independency. The statement suggests that employee do not gain power through involvement and participation in the work processes that includes the decision making process. Edwards and Wajcman (2005) lamented that the acts of involvement and participation do not transfer power to the employees. This is because it is still the powerful managers who get to decided and even design how employees will be involved in the actions and decision that relate to their job and to what extent they can participate in the decision making process within an organisation. Therefore, from the simple fact that powerful managers are the ones who get to set the extent or design of employee involvement and participation it definitely means that employees do not even have an actual power in their involvement and participation since it is the managers who set these on their own terms. From the definition of the term employee involvement and participation, it is evidently clear that in the strategies, employees are only meant to contribute or state their opinions or views regarding matters that affect their jobs. Therefore, it is not as if they are taking full charge of matters affecting their jobs, which could have meant that they are fully empowered through involvement and participation. Hyman and Mason (1995) further added that by contributing to a process it means that one does not have full control over the process. With reference to the writings by Lashley (2001), he argued that in the current workplace it is practically impossible to fully apply or practice the concept of employee empowerment, this is because it will create a crisis within the organisation since there would be no formal hierarchy and there will be lack of control in the entire work process. Wilkinson (1998) further added that the function of management could be rendered redundant with the existence of empowered employees who are in charge of their own roles and responsibilities and get to decide on all matters pertaining their job. Moreover, if indeed employees were empowered through involvement and participation it could be evidently reflected on their overall compensation since empowerment means more power and hence more responsibility, however, this is not the actual case. Summarily, it remains a valid truth that employee involvement and participation does not empower employees, since in practicality employees are not giving any actual or authoritative powers. Different formats of employee involvement and participation To begin with, employee participation was described as a process of employee involvement, meaning that the two are not similar and therefore, they take up different formats. According to Blyton and Turnbull (2004), employee participation is part of managing employee relationship with the management of an organisation and it mainly takes up a collective/ pluralist format that diverges from employee involvement to employee control. Therefore, employee participation may involve mechanisms and processes such as joint consultative committees, work councils, collective bargaining, employee share schemes, and European works councils. Moreover, Blyton and Turnbull (2004) in their studies wrote that employee participation might take up formats such as direct participation or indirect participation. Direct participation, involves employees voicing their opinions or views directly to the management regarding work related issues, while indirect participation involves the joint consultation or bargaining that is conducted by a workers representative body. On the other hand, Edwards and Collinson (2002) commented in their writings that employee involvement takes up the format of unitarist and individualistic, and it is main objective is to enhance the commitment of workers towards the attainment of organisational objectives, in addition, the format mainly relies on sustaining management control. Hyman and Mason (1995) further added that employment involvement is part of the ‘soft’ human resource management technique that conforms to the humanistic or parentalistic approaches or theories of managing human resource. These two theories/ approaches advocate for the involvement of employee in the work processes and decision making in order to ensure their full commitment and participation towards the attainment of the organisational goals and objectives. Examples to illustrate the arguments The earlier argument given was that employees’ involvement and participation does not empower employees. A perfect example to illustrate this is the fact that even if employees contribute their opinions or views in the decision-making process and work related issues, it is still the prerogative of the management to decide whether to adopt or implement the suggestions given by the employees. This confirms that employee involvement and participation does not actually empower the employees. Another example to illustrate that employees are not empowered through involvement and participation is the fact that the management usually does not formally recognise such powers other than the ones stipulated to under the roles and responsibilities of each individual employee. Therefore, despite involvement and participation, the purported powers of employees cannot be formally recognised within the organisation and hence such powers are impractical. Conclusion Based on the critical analysis that was carried, the study has presented arguments, which justify the premise, that employee involvement and participation does not empower employees. Among the arguments used to justify the premise is the fact that under employee participation and involvement there is no real transfer of power to the employees. Additionally, some examples were used to further justify the premise and one of them is that even thou employee involvement and participation allow the employees to contribute to the critical work processes such as the decision making process, it is still the managers prerogative whether to implement or adopt their suggestions or opinions. The arguments presented in the essay as well as the examples given clearly justify that employee involvement and participation does not empower employees. References Bach, S. (2005) Managing Human Resources, Oxford: Blackwell Blyton and Turnbull (2004) The Dynamics of Employee Relations. (3rd Edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ezzamel, M and Willmott, H. (1998) ‘Accounting for teamwork: a critical study of group-based systems of organizational control’. Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 43: 358-397 Edwards, P. and Collinson, M. (2002) Empowerment and Managerial Labor Strategies: Pragmatism Regained, Work and Occupations, 29 (3), 272-299. Edwards, P. and Wajcman, J. (2005): The Politics of Working Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyman, J. and Mason, B. (1995). Managing employees’ involvement and participation. London, Sage Publishers Lashley, C. (2001). Empowerment: HR Strategies for service excellence. Oxford, Butterworth- Heinemann Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: theory and practice, Personnel Review Vol. 27 No. 1 pp 40-56 Read More